January 29, 2015, 07:45:36 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 54
451
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 24mm tilt and shift
« on: October 14, 2012, 07:09:51 AM »
They announced the development a long time ago, so I'm hoping that its release is imminent.  I'm also very curious about its pricing and quality vs the Canon.  At $2k+, I haven't rushed out to buy the Canon lens.  But if the Samyang is comparable at half the price, it might be next on my list. 

452
Lenses / Re: Which lenses for cricket?
« on: October 11, 2012, 05:41:12 AM »
I've taken a 70-200 f/4 IS to the Gabba a few times.  (200mm is the cricket Australia limit and I've never wanted to push my luck).  But 200mm just isn't long enough!  Each time I've wished for something with longer reach.  I'm thinking the 70-300mm on a 550D would be a good choice if you want to travel light with just one lens.  But have you considered going even longer with the 100-400?

453
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 05:04:02 AM »
DxO Analyser is not made for the photographers. It is for the engineers and technicians.

If you think, that a sensor (and I said sensor, not camera) can be fully described with an overall score in 0-100, you are silly. That is only an advertisement stuff for people, who are not educated in this topic.

And I think that's where the problem lies.  Very few people care or want to know about the technical side.  They just want to take great photos.  To do this you need a camera and if you're doing some research you will come across the DxO site.  How awesome is this!!  Not only do they rank all of the cameras but you can also do a comparison between them.  Despite disclaimers and fine print, you really get the impression that the DxO Mark is an objective assessment of one cameras overall ability vs another.

Anyways, I'm only anti-DxO because my camera gets a lowly "73".  Whereas my Nikon D5100 wielding sister gets an "80".  Yet my camera is sooooo much better....



454
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 11:07:49 PM »
Some valid points above and its been interesting reading the discussions about DxOMark in recent months and gaining a better understanding of their tests.  I used to find them very influential - A year or two ago, I was considering purchasing a little Pentax kit for travelling (DSLR and a couple of pancake lenses).  But DxO gave their lenses such bad ratings that I gave up on the idea.  And I've got almost a basic understanding of things.  I don't know what complete beginners make of it all.  Imagine how good Canon sales would be if they were competitve in DxO rankings.

455
Software & Accessories / Re: Needing a primer on batteries
« on: October 08, 2012, 11:34:02 PM »
In Australia, a genuine NP-E3 battery is almost $300.  That's a bit excessive for four AAs and some plastic casing.  Given that you can get an almost identical third party battery for $35, choosing the third party option isn't that hard. (For anyone interested, I've found the ones from Aussie Battery to fit well and have a high shot capacity).

Although I've never had a problem, I am a bit more paranoid about the third party batteries.  I charge them on a granite benchtop with nothing nearby that might catch fire.  And I tend to check on them more regularly.  I don't know if the instances of failure are higher than OEM, but there are enough stories to make you a little wary.

456
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 07, 2012, 06:04:03 AM »
A prime lens collection that is "good enough" is a difficult question.  I'm reasonably confident in saying that there aren't any "bad" lenses in the Canon collection.  Most are good and more than adequate for most things.  Some are very good and fill in the gaps for special needs. 

Even the cheapest lens - the 50mm f/1.8 - is actually quite good once you've stopped it down a bit.  In fact, virtually every cheap option is almost essentially as good as the "L" option except that they generally aren't as sharp at the widest apertures, feel a little flimsy, and their out of focus backgrounds aren't as nice.

For most things, the non-L 35/50/100 lenses will be almost as good, and you'd have to look closely to tell the differences.  And even then, "differences" doesn't actually mean "better" (although, admittedly, generally it will).  And as mentioned above, the 135mm f/2 is a very good lens if that's a focal length that interests you.  Its worthwhile saving up.

457
If you're looking at a more affordable option for occasional use, I've been using a carbon fibre Triopo tripod and ball-head for the last few years with success.

458
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 07, 2012, 02:45:40 AM »
I won't try to say that I fully understand the article.  However, real world results suggest that there is no such problem.  The 5Dii has more than 19mp and has been considered an excellent landscape camera - I don't recall anyone noticing odd colour shifts when stopped down below f/8.  And those with a working D800 seem delighted with their cameras too.

459
Lenses / Re: Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens
« on: October 02, 2012, 10:47:42 AM »
Thanks, should have mentioned that my interest is mostly astronomy related.  Currently using a 400mm with two 2x teleconverters on an m4/3 cameras (to give me an effective 3200mm).  But getting annoyed with noise and my photos could be sharper (and probably my tripod more stable).  Plus the small aperture doesn't help with getting sharp images.  Its not a bad set up for bright objects such as the moon, but planets look like tiny fuzzy blobs.  Just daydreaming about other options.  Maybe a telescope is the solution.

460
Software & Accessories / Re: Who uses a handheld light meter?
« on: October 02, 2012, 08:52:06 AM »
Maybe look at the second hand market.  If you can do some simple maths, then the older Pentax and Minolta spot meters are well regarded.

Nearly every serious photography book I read advocates a spot meter and the zone system or similar including sketching the scene and pencilling in all of the readings to determine the exposure and look that you are seeking.  To me, it seems overly complex and cumbersome....but then, my failure to do this consistently (and my fear of snakes!) might explain why I'm not a world reknown landscape photographer.  I suspect that one of the main benefits of using a light meter is that it makes you think more about what you are doing.  That alone might lead to better photographs. 

Actually, I have an RB67 too hence my reason for one....

You've never been tempted by the metered prism finder?

461
Lenses / Excellent shorter lens with TC vs Average longer lens
« on: October 02, 2012, 07:42:22 AM »
Was just checking the Samyang site and see they've got an 800mm mirror lens and a 650-1300mm zoom.  A second hand shop near my work has a Meade 1000mm f/11 mirror lens for sale.  And I see a lot of similar lenses for sale on eBay.  A quick google search suggests the image quality from these lenses isn't great.  Unfortunately...it seems you get what you pay for.   

But my question is this: -

If you had a 300mm f/4, would your cropped image appear sharper than a cheap 1000mm+ lens?  What about a 300mm with a teleconverter or two?  Is there any point to buying a cheaper, longer lens?

462
Software & Accessories / Re: Who uses a handheld light meter?
« on: October 02, 2012, 07:27:01 AM »
Guilty.  But I only use it with my film cameras.  My RB67 doesn't have a built in light meter.  And while the meter in my Mamiya 6 is ok, I still occassionally find a light meter to be a good reality check - especially when using flash.

With my DSLR, I find the preview from the LCD and histogram more than sufficient.

Perhaps I'm getting lazy, but as there is no direct financial cost with taking digital photos, I'm quite happy to snap away until I've got the exposure I want.  And bracketing isn't necessarily a bad option as it can give you post production possibilities.

463
EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?
« on: September 26, 2012, 05:46:44 AM »
I've got an older 1Ds Mkii and was hoping that a 6D might be the next thing for me.  I'll like the smaller size and the video capabilities.  Higher ISOs, WiFi and GPS will also be fun to play with.  But there are a few things that aren't quite as good.  Just wish the decision was a bit easier. 

464
EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?
« on: September 26, 2012, 04:26:32 AM »
I agree.  And I'm not reallly advocating a switch.  I just think that if the 6D is a sales disaster then Canon will have to give some serious thought to where they went wrong.  Although, realistically, I suspect it will be a sales success and the Canon execs will probably sit around slapping each other on their backs saying how awesome they (and the 6D) are.

465
EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?
« on: September 26, 2012, 01:52:52 AM »
It was about the fact that their website does not disclose any RRPs...

Getting a little off topic, but its good to see a lot of authorised reps (such as Camerapro in Brisbane) list the 6D at $2199.  The do say the price might change, but I think it bodes well.  When you consider that price includes $200 GST, the underlying price is even cheaper than the US.  Overall, local Canon pricing for camera bodies hasn't been shocking me as much as it used to.

Back on topic, I can't believe how much anger the 6D has generated.  Peoples, its just a camera.  It will probably work very well, even if it is uninspiring to many.  There's plenty of other alternative cameras out there.  You don't have to pin your hopes and aspirations on this one.  If its not perfectly suited to your needs, don't buy it.  The best way of getting your message across to Canon is for them to see all of their 6Ds gathering dust on the shelf while the D600 sells like hotcakes.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 54